SH KRESS & COMPANY v. NLRB, No. 18339.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtCHAMBERS, ORR and MERRILL, Circuit
Citation317 F.2d 225
Docket NumberNo. 18339.
Decision Date23 April 1963
PartiesS. H. KRESS & COMPANY, Appellant, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee.

317 F.2d 225 (1963)

S. H. KRESS & COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee.

No. 18339.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

April 23, 1963.


317 F.2d 226

George O. Bahrs and Robert J. Scolnik, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, James C. Paras and Stephen B. Goldberg, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, ORR and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

MERRILL, Circuit Judge.

This case is before the Court on the petition of S. H. Kress & Co., to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, issued July 11, 1962. The Board, in these proceedings, determined that Kress had "interfered with and restrained its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,1 and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 8(a) (1) of the Act." The Board ordered Kress to cease and desist from such interference and restraint and to post notices that it would refrain from the conduct found to have constituted the interference and restraint.

Before the Board the facts were established by stipulation. There is no question of demeanor evidence. The question raised upon this petition is whether the stipulated facts may be said to establish interference and restraint by Kress of section 7 rights of its employees. In our judgment, they may not.

Kress is engaged in a nationwide merchandising business and maintains a retail store in Stockton, California. On August 2, 1961, Local 439 of the National Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America filed a petition with the Board seeking a Board-conducted election in a sixty-employee unit of the Stockton store. In accordance with established Board procedures, the Union submitted with its petition a "showing of interest" in the form of cards signed by Kress employees, authorizing Union representation. By Board practice, such showing of interest should demonstrate that 30

317 F.2d 227
per cent of the employees in the affected unit favored Union representation. A representation hearing was scheduled by the Board for September 27, 1961

Thereafter, approximately thirteen employees voluntarily advised Kress' management that they did not believe that 30 per cent of the employees had signed Union cards. On the basis of this information Kress management proceeded to interview employees respecting their having signed Union cards. With respect to these interviews the stipulation of facts states:

"Respondent, by its officers and agents, Labor Relations Representative Charles G. Barry, and Store Manager Glenn E. Greenbank, on or about September 15 and September 16, 1961, interviewed some forty-five employees in the unit petitioned for by the Union. Each of said employees was called in separately and interviewed by and in the presence of Greenbank and Barry. Said interviews were conducted in a storeroom area, so as not to interfere with the normal business of the store, wholly unconnected with the Manager\'s office. The interviews were conducted during working hours and the employees were paid for the time spent during said interviews.
"Each employee was told that the Company * * * wanted
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • NLRB v. D'Armigene, Inc., No. 19
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 22, 1965
    ...of reprisal. See also Beaver Valley Canning Co. v. N. L. R. B., 332 F.2d 429, 433 (8 Cir. 1964); S. H. Kress & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 317 F.2d 225, 228 (9 Cir. 1963); N. L. R. B. v. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 209 F.2d 596, 599 (2 Cir. 1954); N. L. R. B. v. Tennessee Coach Co., 191 F.2d 54......
  • Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, No. 20125.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 24, 1963
    ...or the like. See, e. g., NLRB v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 381, 388; cf. S. H. Kress & Co. v. NLRB, 9 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 225; NLRB v. Lindsey Newspapers, Inc., 5 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 709. We must say that under the circumstances of this record, we doubt that any on......
  • Beaver Valley Canning Company v. NLRB, No. 17469.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 26, 1964
    ...coercive statements and absent resort to systematic intimidation, is not unlawful conduct per se. See S. H. Kress & Co. v. N.L.R.B., 317 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1963); N.L.R.B. v. Larry Faul Oldsmobile Co., 316 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1963); Lincoln Bearing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 F.2d 48 (6th Cir. ......
  • NLRB v. Lorben Corporation, No. 309
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 3, 1965
    ...only on the basis of lack of any proper purpose. Compare S. H. Kress & Co., 137 N.L.R.B. 1244 (1962), enforcement denied, 317 F.2d 225 (9 Cir....
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • NLRB v. D'Armigene, Inc., No. 19
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 22, 1965
    ...fear of reprisal. See also Beaver Valley Canning Co. v. N. L. R. B., 332 F.2d 429, 433 (8 Cir. 1964); S. H. Kress & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 317 F.2d 225, 228 (9 Cir. 1963); N. L. R. B. v. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 209 F.2d 596, 599 (2 Cir. 1954); N. L. R. B. v. Tennessee Coach Co., 191 F.2d 5......
  • Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. NLRB, No. 20125.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 24, 1963
    ...card or the like. See, e. g., NLRB v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 381, 388; cf. S. H. Kress & Co. v. NLRB, 9 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 225; NLRB v. Lindsey Newspapers, Inc., 5 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 709. We must say that under the circumstances of this record, we doubt that any o......
  • Beaver Valley Canning Company v. NLRB, No. 17469.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 26, 1964
    ...of coercive statements and absent resort to systematic intimidation, is not unlawful conduct per se. See S. H. Kress & Co. v. N.L.R.B., 317 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1963); N.L.R.B. v. Larry Faul Oldsmobile Co., 316 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1963); Lincoln Bearing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 F.2d 48 (6th Cir. 1......
  • NLRB v. Lorben Corporation, No. 309
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 3, 1965
    ...to interrogation only on the basis of lack of any proper purpose. Compare S. H. Kress & Co., 137 N.L.R.B. 1244 (1962), enforcement denied, 317 F.2d 225 (9 Cir....
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT